History at the supreme court on gay marriage, and now the fight to define marriage moves back to the states and the courts as well. And the courts leading the campaigns. Brian brown from the national organization of marriage, and chad griffin with the american human rights campaign, and sparked the court challenge to proposition 8 in california. Chad, let me begin with you. Congratulations on your victory. What is next for you? Will your organizations bring lawsuits challenging the gay marriage bans in more than 30 states? And given what we heard from the court, do you expect to succeed? Look, there is no question, that was a historic week for equality in this country. And american values really did win. With the erasing of the proposition 8, same-sex couples in the state of california started getting matter on friday. Now that doma has been erased from the books thank to that historic decision, those couples across the country legally married, their relationships and their families will be recognized as such. At the same time while we celebrate, we have to acknowledge there are 37 states that still don't have equality. Our job is to work harder than we have fought before to bring equality, full equality to every state in the country. That's what we do now. Repealing the bans or challenging them in court? We'll fight on all courts. Fight them at the ballot box with opportunities, the state legislature, and ultimately it will come back to the federal courts. Do you think you'll win? I have all expectation we will. 30% of americans thanks to these decision now live in states with marriage equality. It's going to be very difficult to deny equal rights to those who live in other states when the next case ultimately reaches the court. In the meantime, you have the decision where everyone legally married in a state will get federal benefits if they live in that state. Kind of a gray area if they move from massachusetts to alabama, there's particular problems, social security and veteran's benefits. What is it going to take as you would like it to see every legally married couple in the united states, same sex, gets the federal benefits? Absolutely. There's no reason to deny the benefits, the rights and privileges and protections that come with marriage to any family, to any family in the country. Whether they live in hope, arkansas, or in new york city. And so we have got to work and this administration has been doing a lot already to ensure implementation of the decision. The president said in his view a marriage is a marriage. I hope and expect that very soon legally married couples, regardless of where they reside will get benefits. There's issues that congress has to address. And there's a respect for marriage act that fully rescinds the parts that are remaining of the so-called defense of marriage act. And I expect the congress will move on that and put into place real permanence so families across the country can have the protections they deserve under the law. Finally, brian brown is coming up, he said to the new york times on saturday, they're going to move to roll back legal gay marriage wherever it exists. And he gave this quote, ultima ultimately, as lincoln said, we can't have a country half slave and half free. Your response? There's no question. This country has always moved, historically, women's rights or the civil rights movements to today, we have moved to greater inclusion and treating everyone equally under the law. A young person in fresno, california or hope, arkansas, can grow up with the same dreams, hopes, and aspirations as anyone else. At the end of the day, ask yourself two questions, who is harmed by marriage equality coming to the country? I have canned my friends in the marriage states, my straight friends, and I can't find a single couple who's straight marriage has been harmed when the gay couple down the street got married. Who benefits? Who benefits. It's what's justice kennedy wrote about. Those kids, thousands upon thousands being raised by same sex parents. It gives them the same rights, protections and privileges as a straight child being raised by straight parents. We have to move with great speed and urgency to ensure that families across this country have equal protection under the law. And we're well on our way we're not there yet. But we're well on our way. Thank you. Bring in brian brown. You heard the questions asked, let's take the first one. Who is harmed by legalizing same-sex marriage? We saw who is harmed, the rule of law and the millions of voters in the state of california who stood up and said we know the truth, it's the union of a man and woman. They are harmed when the courts are used to say they don't have a right to be represented. Chad talks about american values, is it an american value to deprive those people in california who stood up and voted to protect marriage as a union of a man and woman from their right to be heard? The court did not do what ted olson and chad griffin wanted it to do. It did not create a right to redefine marriage through the country. What it did do was rob the proponents of proposition 8 after they have seen utter lawlessness with governor brown and the attorney general refusing to defend the law. Not giving them a defense. The court said, well, the proponents don't have standing. It did not say there was constitutional right to redefine marriage. I caution you that this could be used -- this precedent, it's horrific for our republic. It could be used in states say that were moving forward with a law to make sure that voting rights were respected. If the governor and attorney general don't to want defend that law, you've just gutted the initiative and referendum. Justice scalia seemed more concerned by what the decision is going to do to the state laws and constitutions banning same-sex marriage. He said the majority -- every challenger restricting marriage to the traditional definition. He seems certain that if they're challenged, they're going to go down. I don't think that that is inevitable. What he is pointing to is the absolute travesty of kennedy's decision in the doma case. Which really is incoherent. He doesn't lay out the basis of his legal reasoning. What scalia is saying, because kenned says somethings that patently untrue, your former boss and all of congress were somehow motivated by animus when president clinton signed the defense of marriage act and congress passed it saying that the truth marriage is between a man and a man, is motivated by animus a discrimination leads to discrimination against husbands and wives and mothers and fathers coming to the in marriage. That's the future. There's no doubt there will be an attempt to use the decision that strikes down only section three of doma. Section two stands. States have the right to define marriage as they see fit. But that will be used in the future. Where's your next victory? I think there's a hard fight in illinois going on where we've seen the african-american legislators and pasters, democrats saying we don't want marriage redefined. In indiana, there will be a second vote on a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage. And there will be a lot of attempts to use the decision to redefine marriage in other states. We will stand for the truth wherever it is, and again, in california, although the ninth circuit has lawlessly not waited the 25 days to allow the proponents to have a hearing, there now is an emergency application to the supreme court to, again, respect the rule of law. And that is not what is happening right now.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.